[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201706092351.32996@pali>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 23:51:32 +0200
From: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To: Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
Cc: luto@...capital.net, dvhart@...radead.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose embedded WMI MOF metadata
On Friday 09 June 2017 17:46:12 Mario.Limonciello@...l.com wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@...il.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 3:50 PM
> > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
> > Cc: luto@...capital.net; dvhart@...radead.org; platform-driver-
> > x86@...r.kernel.org; andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com;
> > luto@...nel.org; rjw@...ysocki.net; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16]
> > platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose embedded WMI MOF
> > metadata
> >
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2017 22:23:08 Mario.Limonciello@...l.com wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@...il.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 12:39 PM
> > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
> > > > Cc: luto@...capital.net; dvhart@...radead.org; platform-driver-
> > > > x86@...r.kernel.org; andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com;
> > > > luto@...nel.org; rjw@...ysocki.net;
> > > > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16]
> > > > platform/x86: wmi-mof: New driver to expose embedded WMI MOF
> > > > metadata
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 15:56:21 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 06 June 2017 13:46:16 Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 2) On my system when you expand the arguments for "void
> > > > > > DoBFn" the source doesn't describe individual arguments
> > > > > > like you do. Again this might not matter to MOF parsing
> > > > > > tools but wanted to let you know in case it does.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know, this part is missing. Order of arguments are only in
> > > > > ID qualifier and not sorted + in/out de-duplicated.
> > > >
> > > > Implemented! Now arguments are correctly placed based on ID
> > > > qualifier.
> > >
> > > I think it's still off a little though.
> > >
> > > What I'm getting back now from bmf2mof is:
> > > void DoBFn([in, Description("Fn buf"), out] BDat Data);
> > >
> > > Whereas source puts Description as the last argument:
> > > void DoBFn([in, out, Description("Fn buf")] BDat Data);
> >
> > In BMOF from my Latitude E6440 there are specified two parameters
> > with index 0. One with qualifiers ("in", Description("Fn buf"))
> > and one with ("out", Description("Fn buf")). I think you have
> > similar/same data in BMOF.
> >
> > In my bmf2mof I just combined those two parameters into one (when
> > name, type and index matches) and concatenate also qualifiers with
> > removing duplicates.
> >
> > Do not know what is correct way, but I think qualifiers are just
> > unordered set. MS decompiler probably put "in" and "out" qualifiers
> > before any other for better readability.
>
> Have you tried to run it through mofcomp.exe and then decompile again
> with bmf2mof? As long as it's coming out the same you're probably
> right.
Yes, bmf2mof+mofcomp.exe+bmf2mof gives same output as just bmf2mof.
> > > > > > source:
> > > > > > void DoBFn([in, out, Description("Fn buf")] BDat Data);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bmf2mof:
> > > > > > void doBFn([in, Description("Fn buf"), ID(0)] BDat Data,
> > > > > > [out, Description("Fn buf"), ID(0)] BDat Data);
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pali Rohár
> > > > pali.rohar@...il.com
> >
> > --
> > Pali Rohár
> > pali.rohar@...il.com
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists